Once again, in an effort to addresses MEDA’s stated concerns, that “this luxurious project comprised of large, high-end units would be occupied by wealthy residents that will negatively impact the character of this working-class neighborhood and directly and indirectly contribute to displacement impacts that threaten the community’s cultural and economic diversity,” the following revisions to the project were made by the development team:

The top floor was split into two units instead of having a luxury penthouse unit.

The proposed office space component was removed in order to add three more residential units.

A floor with two units was split into three smaller units.

A below market rate unit, which wasn’t originally required, was added on-site.

A Letter of Intent for the ground floor commercial space was signed with Jason Nazzal, whose family has owned retail businesses in the Mission for 30 years that hires at-risk youth in the Mission and intends to create up to fourteen new jobs for local employment (which is a net addition of thirteen jobs over the existing auto shop).

According to the Planning Department’s original case file, “the DR Requestor stated [that MEDA is] universally opposed to any new construction along Mission Street, regardless of the nature of the project.” That line has since been stricken, however. And according to MEDA, the perceived universal opposition was actually “the developer’s “impression” of MEDA” and doesn’t represent their position.

At the same time, MEDA’s formal opposition to the redevelopment of the 1900 Mission Street site remains in place, with the stated position that maintaining the existing auto shop, versus building market-rate housing on the site, is better for the neighborhood.

MEDA’s mission is great. They just need to keep their opinions of development in the neighborhood to a minimum. Focus on promotion of beneficial projects and programs instead of combating ones that don’t fit their ideal.

I think it is fair, especially with the growing income disparities in the US, to fear increased standards. It has nothing to do with being lazy. It’s scary. That said, trying to improve outcomes seems like a better approach than trying to stop progress.

They are improving outcomes for the very rich (property owners who enjoy insanely high rents) and the very poor (people who will never afford market-rate, I’m sorry, “luxury” housing). And we wonder why the middle class are getting squeezed out of San Francisco….

If they want to preserve a downscale Latino themed amusement park, they should not have built it in an old Irish neighborhood on top of a BART line. Let’s build an adobe wall around it decorated with colorful murals and eliminate all the BART stops.

The point is neighborhoods change – it’s called living in a vibrant (and economically viable) urban environment … and that for the last 40+ years, this area has been (and should be) slated for increased density due to the BART alignment.

That *anyone* would oppose replacing a one-story cinderblock auto shop – on what should be one of the primary corridors of the city – speaks volumes about the idiocy (yes, “idiocy”) of the opposition.

I still laugh at “negatively impact the character of the neighborhood” SERIUOLSY!? I have NEVER been on that stretch of Mission and NOT seen a junkie, fecal matter or drug “tools” give me a break. I seriously feel like banging my head angainst the keyboard because I can’t comprehend how utterly stupid these [arguments] are.

The existing building is a dump. It provides housing for no one – and adds nothing architecturally or socially to the neighborhood. I have a hard time seeing how MEDA can claim to be working in the interests of the existing low income residents by preserving a dump.